AC,

When your sole argument against Australians who support the war, or don't actively oppose it, is that they should care about how much extra everything will cost because of the war, you can't really complain that I point out that your sole argument against Australians who support the war, or don't actively oppose it, is that they should care about how much extra everything will cost because of the war.

You won't understand this, but some of us think there are higher concerns here than the cost of petrol.

I seem to have a different view of this.
I don't see Iranian leadership as being peopled by bad men and women.
They are good and honorable men and women who fervently believe their attitude to life is the only correct one.
However, I think they are wrong.
A society which kills its own citizens needlessly is wrong.
A society which prevents citizens expressing truthful ideas is wrong.
A society which prevents citizens from expressing their individuality is wrong.
(Even though there must be sensible universally accepted guidelines in any grouping.)
But their approach is wrong because it doesn't produce a calm and progressive society.
The leadership it trying to live the lives of the citizens for them.
The citizens must live their own lives.
Sadly, I doubt the present leadership will ever change its attitude.
So it must be replaced, if peace is to reign over many distressed people.
They SHOULD initiate this change themselves, but that is easier said than done.
So it will continue as is, unless the world as a whole steps in and says NO to repression.

Say what?

"She sells seashells by the seashore",
"Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers",
"How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"

What sort of mealy-mouthed crap is this mhaze?

'uncontrolled auto-whinge from trained monkey'

Ipso Fatso wants to modify the sample and results.
So that's 4 out of 5 people thought 'lets go to war with a nation of 90 million' hoping to shut off access to 20% of the worlds oil and a large share of the worlds fertiliser.

I don't agree the position, but at least he tries to explain his reasoning, which I think is flawed;
Wrong the same way he thinks Iran is wrong.

"But their approach is wrong because it doesn't produce a calm and progressive society."
Me - You can't have a calm and progressive society when it's the target of a U.S. regime change.
- Sorry, Do not pass 'GO', do not collect $200.

He's essentially blaming the country for something beyond their control.
But not to be too harsh, obviously 'It is an Islamic theocracy'

You know what's interesting, nobody ever asked why I never once said 'I supported sanctions and regime change on Israel.'
It's because I stand by my principles, I don't support sanctions or overthrows, end of story.
(Personal boycotts are fine though)

I think many of you are hypocrites, but maybe it's just some kind of subconscious bias, I dunno.
Maybe you think your position is correct, just as I do.

Why is it none of you hold Israel to the same standards you expect Iran to meet?

I've said it before, if we're going to measure based on moral standards, why assume it's okay to hold Iran to those standards if you don't hold Israel to the same standards.
Because if you don't, then it was never about moral standards at all, it was just about winning an argument when your position was poor to begin with.

It's one thing to talk about these moral principles in isolation, but that's not what's happening.
Essentially your bringing this up to support a genocidal nation Israel trying to knock Iran off, and that therefore changes the basis of your claimed moral standards, as well as questions the motive.

What if your 'plan' was never workable?
Never had any hope of success,
Fools errand.

I do not hate or despise the Iranian leadership team.
It saddened me when their supreme leader was killed recently.
Which might surprise many, but an 'I hate him' attitude is stupid.
And such an idea belongs only with the those whose thinking has not progressed beyond an elementary level.
If your world includes arch enemies, it is time for you to make a change.
For you are living in an artificial world.
However, it is true that when groups or people with vastly different ideas about survival meet, conflict is possible.
This can be initiated by either side, discreetly or overtly.
Then the offended party will likely defend himself.
Which all belongs in the realm of survival of the fittest.
A concept which seems to have served us well throughout history?
There is one unfortunate limitation to this basic approach however.
When one side has infinite capacity, the winner is certain.
As Mr Trump so wisely said, 'you cannot fight the world'.
Yes! You truly cannot fight world opinion!
If you try, eventually you will lose.

If I were obliged to comment on Armchair Critic's latest tirade I would say:
I have not read such unadulterated rubbish for a long long time.
However, I was impressed by the vehemence of his writing.
(A strategy which can be very good for emotional release I am told.)
However, to be fair, I think he misunderstood or misinterpreted my words.
Which is unfortunate.
But it is a happy circumstance that I am not obliged to comment, so I will say nothing.
Which is the safest and politest thing to do.
And just a final thought for the record.
Jewish people experienced a holocaust during world war two.
Now they have engineered one of their own.
Which means that eventually they will suffer all over again.
Fortunately, there are cooler heads amongst them.
Which will help lessen the impact of their misdeeds.